Agenda item

(i)        To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Leader outline what specific powers he would like devolved to Yorkshire / Yorkshire & Humber?”

Yes.

1.       Ability to set business rates

2.       Power to introduce differential business rates

3.       Fair funding and fair powers over transport schemes

4.       Fair funding and fair powers over publicly funded housing schemes

5.       Functions from Department of Works and Pensions

6.       Functions previously carried out by Government Offices, Regional      Assemblies and Regional Development Agencies

7.       Ability to administer European funds

8.       Ability to keep taxes raised locally

9.       Skills funding

10.   The power to raise levies to support investment in growth promoting infrastructure and improvements to transport.

(ii)      To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:

“What tangible spending commitments has York benefitted from to date from the West Yorkshire Combined Authority?”

The Leeds City Region Local Growth Fund City Deal announced in the summer was the largest in the country. York will benefit significantly by being part of the West Yorkshire Plus Transport Fund funding stream. £83.5m has been identified in the fund for York schemes which represents a step change in infrastructure funding for the city. The funding profile is subject to review to align with the settlement figure and is due to be confirmed in December 2014. This is because the Government agreement has led to £1bn over 20 years as opposed to the 10 years negotiated. Early stage development work has commenced for upgrading the Outer Ring Road and access to the York Central development. The aim is to commence delivery of the first schemes by the end of 2015/16.

(iii)     To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Steward:

“Can the Leader reassure members that residents will always come first in the focus of the transformation agenda and allay fears that some in the Labour group are more concerned about the methods of service delivery (for example the level of private sector involvement) rather than the quality of service to residents?”

Yes.

(iv)    To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Doughty:

“Given the Labour administration's supposed inability to help fund the main meal of the day for vulnerable and elderly people at a cost of £50,000 per year at sheltered housing complexes at Barstow House, Gale Farm Court, Glen Lodge and Marjorie Waite Court, could the Cabinet Leader please confirm how much taxpayer's money has been spent on art work in and around West Offices since it opened?”

Yes. The amount was £308k and this was in line with the scheme agreed cross-party before my time as council leader. This included a contribution of £220k from the private sector. Council policies set before my time say 1% of such developments should be spent on public art. I attempted to divert some of these funds to other schemes, including trying to avert an increase in school meal costs in 2011/12. However, the £220k capital funding from the West Offices developers was contractually reserved for use on public art in West Offices and could not be spent on unrelated revenue schemes. Furthermore to divert the council’s contribution to this public art would have meant losing the entire contribution from the private sector. I therefore reluctantly accepted the agreement made cross-party before Labour was elected to office.

(v)      To the Cabinet Leader from Cllr Doughty:

“Given the threat of withdrawal of financial support to Community Centres around the city with his groups tired excuse of Government cuts rather than careful choice decisions, does the Cabinet Leader still believe his Labour administration's decision to give £100,000 towards the 'arts barge' project to be a good use of public funds?”

I know Councillor Doughty would happily gloss over his party’s attempts to decimate public services the length and breadth of the country but having lost such a significant percentage of the council’s revenue budget as a result of his Government’s actions, he cannot pretend this will have no impact on York residents. The arts barge has become a tired argument from a Tory Group struggling for anything new to say.

But yes, £9,000 in revenue repayment for a capital scheme that helps a community group, the cultural sector and the economy is appropriate.

The way local government finance is going there will be an increasing need to work with the voluntary sector to deliver local priorities.

(vi)    To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr D’Agorne:

“What action is being taken to secure prosecution of bus operators running defective engine vehicles polluting our streets with black smoke and what action is planned to stop unnecessary vehicle idling by buses in Rougier St and other Air Quality blackspots?”

We have a voluntary agreement with all bus operators in York, including the tour bus operators, that vehicles should not stand in the centre of York (or anywhere else) with their engines running.  The issue is regularly raised with bus operators through the York Quality Bus Partnership, most recently at the meeting of the 15^th September.

Operators are committed to addressing the issues caused by idling and, through continuous professional development, work with their drivers to instil the need to switch engines off when buses are stationary for more than a couple of minutes. Drivers are also regularly reminded of the importance of switching off.

A study into the extent of idling emissions in York and the options for reducing them was commissioned in 2013.  The study provided evidence of many incidences of vehicle idling currently taking place across the city and has indicated that, by adopting basic anti-idling policies, a significant reduction in emissions could be achieved, along with even greater fuel cost savings for operators.  The framework for AQAP3 suggests a partnership and awareness raising approach to anti-idling in the first instance with a focus on a number of clearly defined ‘anti-idling zones’. These are locations where unnecessary idling is currently known to occur, both on the roadside and at coach parks. Further consultation will be required on the levels of signage (if any) to be provided and the most effective way to engage with transport operators on this issue.

The AQAP3 will retain an option to adopt anti-idling legislation and issue fixed penalty notices at a later date should the partnership approach be unsuccessful.

We are committed to introducing more electric buses, including the recent launch by Transdev of an electrically powered tour bus in York - the first double deck electric bus in the World.  We are now working on a project with Transdev which would see the other 5 buses in the Tour Bus fleet converted to electric power so the whole fleet would become zero emission at point of use.   More generally, CYC aspire to convert the York "urban" (as opposed to longer distance) bus fleet to electric power to reduce emissions in the city centre.  One park and ride route (A59) is already converted, with work in hand to convert a second route soon.  A further electric bus is in use between the University and York city centre, and it is also intended that the new service to Germany Beck is also operated using electric buses.  First have also recently introduced 5 diesel-electric hybrid buses on service 4 between Acomb and the University, and are upgrading the sub-station at their depot so that it can charge up to 90 fully electric buses per night in the future.

(vii)   To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr D’Agorne:

“Can he explain how Labour’s claimed reduction of 5000 houses in the Local Plan actually equates to less than half that number being removed from site lists and no reduction in the area of land allocated for development?”

The Preferred Options Draft Local Plan included a housing demand target of 1,090 dwellings per annum over the Local Plan period from 1^st October 2012 to 2030 (17.5 years). This equates to 19,075 dwellings in total. In addition a 15% buffer was included across the full Plan period to provide flexibility in the supply and to deal with persistent under-delivery in previous years. This 15% buffer equates to an additional 2,861 dwellings over the Plan period. In total therefore the Preferred Options Draft included a housing target inclusive of the buffer of 21,936 dwellings.

The housing demand target in the Publication Draft Plan is made up of thetrend based assessment of household growth to support the Plan’s economic ambition of 870 per annum (undertaken by Arup) and a further provision to address the inherited shortfall from previous years under delivery of 126 per annum¹. This equates to an annual demand target of 996 (870+126) or 15,936 dwellings (996 x 16) over the 16 years of the Plan (1 April 2014 to 31^st March 2030).

In addition Local Planning Authorities, as set out in NPPF, are expected to demonstrate that they have a rolling five year supply of deliverable sites, measured against the housing target with an additional 5% or 20% buffer (for five years) depending on past delivery rates to provide a realistic prospect of achieving the planned supply and to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. In clear agreement with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework, the draft Local Plan housing requirement includes a 20% buffer on supply bought forward from the total requirement in the first five years (i.e. 6 years’ worth of supply rather than 5 years). This equates to rolling forward sites and land which could accommodate an additional 174 dwellings per annum for years 1-6 of the Plan (174 x 174 = 1,044 in total).  This means that the supply for years 1-6 of the Plan is equivalent to 1,170 dwellings per annum (made up of existing planning permissions and allocations).

In summary therefore the Publication draft Plan supplies enough land allocations (in addition to existing planning commitments) to provide for the construction of  1,170 homes per annum for years 1-6 of the Plan (7,020 dwellings in total) and 996 homes per annum for years 7-16 of the Plan (9,960 dwellings). This gives a housing target inclusive of the bufferfor the plan period (16 years) of 16,980 dwellings. This is set out in Table 5.2 within the Publication Draft Plan in the Housing Trajectory. I calculate this as 4,956 less than the previous equivalent figure.

In terms of sites a number of sites or part sites have been deallocated if you look at the map, and equally significantly the developable area on a number of the strategic sites has been reduced so that strategic green spaces can be provided as part of the overall site development. These green spaces will help us to meet a number of environmental, conservation and heritage / green belt objectives and opportunities – preserving and enhancing existing natural features like becks, enhancing green corridors, giving protection to nearby sites of conservation interest, avoiding building up to the ring road and thereby helping to preserve the cities setting, ensuring good amenity space provision, etc. It should also be noted that some of the largest strategic housing allocations include areas that will be developed well after the plan period. It is important that they are included in the allocations to give certainty to the developers and allow the financing of the physical and community infrastructure measures that will ensure these are genuine new communities, and not soulless suburbs.

(viii)  To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Doughty:

“Can the Cabinet Member evidence just exactly how the views of thousands of residents have been considered and reflected (at all) in the Draft Local Plan consultation?”

There have been two key consultations in relation to the draft Local Plan, the Preferred Options Consultation which took place in Summer 2013 and the Further Sites Consultation which was carried out in Summer 2014. The Preferred Options Draft Local Plan was subject to consultation between June and July 2013. Approximately 5,000 individual responses were received including around 17,000 comments and a further 9,000 individuals signed petitions.

The Further Sites consultation was undertaken in June and July 2014 on potential new sites and boundary changes on some of the sites originally identified. The aim of this consultation was to help inform future recommendations on the portfolio of sites for inclusion in the publication draft Local Plan. The Council received around 4,500 responses.

A considerable amount of information has been made available relating to the number and content of comments received as part of both previous stages of consultation on the Local Plan.  In the main these comprise three pieces of information:

(i) the number of objections, supports or comments received in relation to each policy and site;

(ii) a summary of the comments received (at both previous stages of consultation on the Local Plan, officers summarised the comments received by section, policy and site); and

(iii) full copies of the responses received (redacted to remove personal information).

Annex B to the Local Plan Working Group Report 22^nd September 2014 and Cabinet Report 25^th September 2014 provides a summary of the previous stages of consultation on the Local Plan consultations, to enable the reader of the Publication Draft Local Plan to consider what views have previously been expressed on a given policy issue or site.

The comments received through both consultations have been taken into account by officers and ourselves when considering the Publication Draft Plan, and their has been significant reductions in the jobs and housing targets, plus a lot of more detailed changes. I should also remind members of what our professional officers keep trying to remind us of, and that is that the Coalition Governments National Planning framework is a very defined process, and there is very limited room for local political and resident choice in terms of key issues like the housing targets. 

The Publication Draft Local Plan will be subject to a six week consultation period beginning in October 2014. Consultation will be carried out in conformity with the Councils adopted Statement of Community Involvement and the requirements of the 2012 Regulations. Comments received as part of the consultation will then be considered by officers to help assess the ‘soundness’ of the plan and be reported to Full Council.

(ix)    To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Doughty:

“The Draft Local Plan continues to plan for 'safeguarded' land (reserving for future development) beyond the life of the plan when there is no requirement under the National Planning Policy Framework. A prime example of this in my own ward, amongst others, is site '810' on crucial greenbelt at Earswick. Why is this?”

The NPPF sets out the national policy on green belt.

In drawing up the Green belt in the City of York Local Plan we need to consider how to address the following points (shown in italics) from paragraph 85 of NPPF

·        The first is that the Council needs to satisfy themselves that Green Belt boundaries will not need to be altered at the end of the development plan period

This requires consideration of the longer term development pressures on the city. In the Plan we make clear that it is reasonable to expect a continued need for housing at broadly the same scale as in the Plan period. We need to consider the implications for the permanence of the green belt of that continued requirement.

·        Secondly where necessary, identify in their plans areas of ‘safeguarded land’ between the urban area and the Green Belt, in order to meet longer-term development needs stretching well beyond the plan period

The general extent of the York green belt takes in the lands surrounding York and the larger freestanding settlements in the district and extends to the district boundary and in some cases beyond that boundary.  

In defining the inner edge of that boundary, for the first time in the Local Plan, we need to consider how we ensure the boundary endures well beyond the Plan period.

The only way to do this effectively is to identify a reserve of land that can help to meet some of the city’s development requirements beyond the Plan period, that land is the safeguarded land identified in the Plan. We have also assumed that some development needs will be met within the existing built up area e.g. through a continued ‘windfall’ of small sites for housing. However officers views are that it is not credible to assume that all development needs will be met in the built up area therefore it is necessary to identify safeguarded land in the circumstance here in York.  

(x)      To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Richardson:

“Because of Council’s commitment to reducing carbon emissions, Council installed a rain water harvesting system to reduce costs for cleaning commercial vehicles at Hazel Court. Will the Cabinet Member state how long the pumps on the system have remained non-operational to date and what the costs were of replacing the pumps at that centre?”

The water for the drive through vehicle facility installed at Hazel Court was to be supplied from an underground harvest tank fed from the workshop roofs supplemented by the mains water during dry periods.

Early in 2011 it became apparent the underground harvest tank was failing to provide sufficient water supply to match demand. The supply was switched to mains feed supply.

The Fleet Management Team have now identified an appropriate amendments to the pump system to enable the drive through wash facility to be switched back to the original concept of harvested rainwater, but at this point the cost have not been determined.

(xi)    To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Richardson:

“The results from the new electrical P&R bus have been very positive. Can the Cabinet Member assure this council that a plan has been agreed with First and other transport partners to introduce more electric buses as the old buses are retired, and how many sites measuring particulates across the City would change from red to green by implementing this plan?”

The Council is working closely with operators to deliver an ultra-low emission bus fleet for the City. In addition to the six fully electric vehicles already operating on the Park & Ride network, First York will be introducing six more fully electric vehicles early in 2015. Last month, the first retro-fitted, fully electric tour bus entered service. The Council continues to work with operators and with central government to seek opportunities to accelerate the introduction of an ultra low emission bus fleet.

The air quality objectives for the especially damaging small particulates are currently not being breached at any CYC monitoring locations, unlike those relating to Nitrogen Dioxides.  The proposed Clean Air Zone (CAZ) will become the main delivery mechanism for achieving a rapid reduction in the number of diesel buses operating in the city centre.  The most frequent services will be required to upgrade to ultra low emission buses by 2018.  This will help York meet the health based annual mean nitrogen dioxide objective within its current Air Quality Management Areas.

Air quality modelling has shown that by rolling out AQAP3 to the extent that it delivers an equivalent of 90% electric buses and 5% electric cars, there is potential for the annual mean NO2 objective to be met in all the current AQMAs by 2021.  The possible exception to this is Nunnery Lane for which modelling still shows a borderline outcome.   Local and national emission reduction measures are expected to have less of an impact in this area due to the lower prevalence of buses and HGVs and the larger levels of traffic growth predicted in this area compared to other AQMAs.  CYC’s electric bus feasibility project (2013) engaged the major local bus operators and CYC is currently discussing the proposed Clean Air Zone (CAZ) with operators through the Quality Bus Partnership

(xii)   To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Richardson:

“Will the Cabinet Member state when the next round of weed spraying is to begin and will this Council apologise for the large number of weeds that have taken root around the city, some as high as 1 metre?”

The 3^rd round of weed control commenced on the 29^th September and is normally a ‘mop up’ of hot spot areas mainly comprising of the older paved areas of the city - Bishophill, Southbank, Acomb (part) etc, on this occasion all areas of the city will be walked and where weeds are visible they will be sprayed.

In general the first 2 applications went well taking into consideration the very wet and warm spring, however on our inspections one or two areas did appear to have untreated weeds, this has been drawn to the attention of our contractor and to compensate for this, they are funding the difference between a part and full spray for the 3^rd application (above) and are also going to treat around all obstacles in grass verges. 

(xiii)  To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Reid:

“Could the Cabinet Member confirm that there are no plans to introduce further green bin charges and residents’ first green bin will remain free?”

It’s no secret that we face an increased demand for services and the council has to make significant savings across all services. Street based services are no different and savings of around £2million will have to be made. As residents would expect, every option will be reviewed carefully considered.

(xiv) To the Cabinet Member for Environmental Services, Planning and Sustainability from Cllr Reid:

“What is the Council doing to recover the weed spraying situation in the west of the city, what steps is it putting in place to ensure that there is not a repeat of the recent situation of overgrown weeds?”

Please see may answer to question (xii) above. The contract is due to be tendered during the winter and we are working with the procurement team and neighbouring authorities to look at possible joint contracts.

(xv)  To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr D’Agorne:

“Can he report on progress in measures to fix traffic signalling issues in York, notably unnecessary delays at Broadway/Fulford Rd, Hospital Fields/ Fulford Rd, Blossom St/ Queen St/Nunnery Lane/Micklegate on account of sub optimal phasing equipment or design?”

We have recently assigned £300k to refresh detection equipment at several signal junctions across the city. This work is already underway and when complete will result in an improvement in operation at those locations where performance has been reduced by normal wear and tear failure of signalling equipment.

Furthermore, the successful launch of the York Travel and Control Centre based at West Offices has allowed us to undertake constant reviews of signal timings to further improve operation around the city. This facility allows us to prioritise routes and to get the most out of our extremely limited capacity. Active traffic management is one of the most effective tools available for keeping congestion as low as possible and we are well equipped in this respect.

We continue to trial new and innovative traffic management techniques to address the specific challenges present here in York. The DfT have recently approved a technique that was trialled at Blossom St / Queen St, which can now be used across the country. We are at the forefront of traffic management innovation here in York and are making efforts to stay there.

(xvi) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr D’Agorne:

“What has the impact of the free city parking offer been on occupancy levels and income when compared to the same period in 2013? What has the impact been on average occupancy levels outside the ‘free parking’ period?”

Given the variety of initiatives we have undertaken, in order to balance the Council’s budget in the face of massive cuts from the Conservative Lib-Dem Government while also trying to support the economy of the city centre, that will impact on the volume of parking in Council car parks – including new Park & Ride sites at Askham Bar and Poppleton Bar, Pay on Exit at Marygate car park, the closure of Haymarket car park, and the new Minster Card parking permit – it is not currently possible to disaggregate the specific impact of the free parking offer.

However, occupancy levels will be assessed using the car parking entry/exit counters. This information needs to be collated and will be analysed within the next few weeks.

(xvii)   To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr D’Agorne:

“What is the estimated cost of catching up with the backlog of highway/ gully clearing now and what is it estimated to be in a year’s time if only reactive cleaning continues to be the policy in force?”

The Council currently carries out a programme of both proactive and reactive cleansing of highway gulley assets across the network. Officers are not aware of any “backlog” in this programme, but it would require an estimated £250k of additional funding to proactively clear all highway gullies in the CYC area in any one year.

Recognising the challenging financial circumstances that the Council faces a review of gully cleansing policy is currently being undertaken to establish if a more proactive regime can be put in place in the next financial year within current budgets.

(xviii)  To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Cuthbertson:

“How many motorists have applied for a Lendal Bridge fine refund since the process opened on September 8^th and could the Cabinet Member breakdown the applications by postcode?”

To date, there are approximately 5500 unverified requests for repayment. This figure will be reviewed and any errors, duplicates etc have yet to be removed. A breakdown of the application by postcode cannot presently been done. More in-depth analysis will be possible once the aforementioned reviewing and matching has been carried out.

(xix) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:

“Could the Cabinet Member update council on legal developments regarding the Coppergate traffic restrictions?”

There have been no further legal developments for the Coppergate traffic restrictions since the Traffic Penalty Tribunal were asked to review their original decision in accordance with the standard appeal process. The Council is awaiting the response to this request.

(xx)  To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Aspden:

“Could the Cabinet Member confirm that consultation will take place with the wider Fulford community and specifically the residents of Naburn Lane and Selby Road on the A19 ‘pinch-point’ works and when does he expect this consultation to begin?”

As with all transport schemes, we are committed to meaningful consultation with the public and especially local residents at an appropriate time.  

We are still in the early process of identifying what is feasible in terms of engineering, and officers are undertaking traffic modelling to fully understand the impacts of several options alongside a more detailed consideration of the possible engineering aspects. Provisionally we hope to be commencing public consultation before the end of the year.

(xxi) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Runciman:

“How many vehicles have taken advantage of the Council's ‘free’ parking offer which started on 19^th June at each car park and what impact has this had on the revenue derived by the Council from all car parks?”

Given the variety of initiatives we have undertaken, in order to balance the Council’s budget in the face of massive cuts from the Conservative Lib-Dem Government while also trying to support the economy of the city centre, that will impact on the volume of parking in Council car parks – including new Park & Ride sites at Askham Bar and Poppleton Bar, Pay on Exit at Marygate car park, the closure of Haymarket car park, and the new Minster Card parking permit – it is not currently possible to disaggregate the specific impact of the free parking offer.

However, occupancy levels will be assessed using the car parking entry/exit counters. This information needs to be collated and will be analysed within the next few weeks.

(xxii)   To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Firth:

“How many (new style) Minster Badges have now been sold and how does this compare to budget assumptions?”

To the end of September approximately 6,300 Minster Badges have been sold. The budget was not based on a specific number of sales but an assumed increased revenue from a combination of Minster Badge sales and additional income from those not purchasing the badge and paying the higher rate for parking; as such it is too early to determine the financial impact on parking income of this particular initiative.

(xxiii)  To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:

“What compensation is the Council seeking from the Contractor for the major delays which arose in the completion of the A59 Park & Ride contract?”

The works were undertaken using a standard construction contract which includes liquidated damage clauses if the works over run beyond the contract completion date. These issues will be assessed during the preparation of the final account for the scheme.

(xxiv) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:

“Why have no speed checks been undertaken by Council officials in west York since the introduction of the wide area 20 mph limit over 12 months ago?”

Speed surveys are not routinely undertaken across the city but are commissioned for the monitoring of before and after speeds (following a speed limit change) usually a full 12 months post-implementation, to give time for the new limit to ‘settle in’. 

Cllr Reid is incorrect in her assertion that the speed limits have been in place for 12 months. The west York area 20mph limits came into force on 27 January 2014 and thus surveys will not be repeated in this area until February 2015.

(xxv)   To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Hyman:

“How does the income derived from the Marygate car park, since it had a barrier system installed, compare to the equivalent period last year?”

Income from Marygate Car Park in the 13 week period from 30^th June to 28^th September totalled £142k in 2014/15. The equivalent figure for 2013/14 was £177k.

There are a variety of initiatives we have undertaken, in order to balance the Council’s budget in the face of massive cuts from the Conservative Lib-Dem Government while also trying to support the economy of the city centre – including new Park & Ride sites at Askham Bar and Poppleton Bar, Pay on Exit at Marygate car park, closure of Haymarket car park, and the new Minster Card parking permit – that will have had an impact on parking income in any particular car park.

(xxvi) To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Hyman:

“How many faults have occurred on the new barrier/ticketing installation at Marygate car park and does the Cabinet Member  judge the barrier system to have been a success?”

There have been some minor faults which, as with all newly introduced schemes, is to be expected whilst the system beds in. These have been dealt with expeditiously with minimal disruption to the fee-paying public.

(xxvii)                To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Reid:

“The ‘Programme of Highway Maintenance scheme 2014/15’ showed a number of schemes approved for work with dates TBC, could the Cabinet Member now provide dates for these schemes including Vesper Drive?”

See attached schedule of Programme of Highway Maintenance schemes for 2014/15.

(xxviii)              To the Cabinet Member for Transport from Cllr Aspden:

“Could the Cabinet Member update Council on proposals for a city-wide cycle hire scheme which was originally due to be ready by “early 2014”?”

Initial proposals for a cycle hire scheme received in-principle approval from Cabinet, subject to developing a business case and establishing funding options. 

A procurement exercise showed that a scheme would not be self-sustaining and would need an ongoing revenue subsidy from the council. In a period of massive cuts from the Conservative Lib Dem Government to the Council it was not considered possible to allocate funding to this item. Reports from other comparable cycle hire schemes around the UK showed that none of them had been proven to be revenue-generating or even neutral. 

The feasibility report prepared for the scheme is still valid and a cycle hire scheme could form part of a package of measures in any future bids for transport grants from central government.

Although this particular scheme is not going forward for the time being, York remains the lead Local Authority for the region for the Tour de France legacy and continues to head the coordination of regional activities, including providing greater cycle training and access opportunities, improving cycling infrastructure and activities, and supporting the network of cycling businesses and social enterprises.

(xxix) To the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance from Cllr Healey:

“Please can the Cabinet Member briefly articulate why the external auditor is unable to certify the completion of the accounts due to ‘The income relating to penalty charge notices is £1.8m, which is below the level of materiality of our opinion on the financial statements.” when at the Call-In of the Cabinet decision regarding Lendal Bridge on the 27^th of August the Director gave a categorical assurance that this was ample provision?”

The question contains numerous errors, most important of which is that the Auditor WAS NOT unable to certify the completion “due to the income being below level of materiality”. The accounts have received an unqualified opinion (effectively signed off). They are unable to formally complete (ie issue the certificate) merely because there is an objection that they have to review. It has not however stopped them issuing their unqualified opinion on the accounts.

The auditors are entirely happy with how the item has been provided for in the accounts, and the full amount of income received from both Lendal and Coppergate is held in a reserve/provision, and has been fully discussed with the auditors.

The comment about scrutiny and the Director giving his categorical assurance is interesting given that the Director was in France on that day and was not at the scrutiny meeting in question! Aside from this fact, I can confirm that the Director of CBSS has, in discussion with me, put into a reserve/provision all of the Lendal Bridge/Coppergate income, that this was reported to Cabinet/Audit committee, and that the Auditors are content. The amount put into reserve/provison is £1.8m. The auditors “materiality” figure, which applies to their whole audit of accounts, and which is not related at all to Lendal Bridge/Coppergate, is £7m.

I would hope that further questions might be a little more accurate in the future.

(xxx)  To the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance from Cllr Healey:

“Has the Cabinet Member sought an opinion from the external auditor as to the cost-effectiveness of the Community Stadium and Leisure facilities, and if not why not?”

No. It is not part of external audits remit to do so.

In terms of the scheme itself, given the Council is currently looking at contributing just over 20% of the cost, I would consider that represents excellent value for money.

(xxxi) To the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance from Cllr Richardson:

“As part of any contact with this Council, members of the public are given a reference or case number so residents are able to follow up the progress of a complaint or issue it has with the council. Following the long delays for calls to be answered by the contact centre, the last thing residents need to be told is that they cannot have a reference or case number, because the contact centre has been unable to assign case numbers since the beginning of the year due to technical difficulties. Will the Cabinet member explain why this situation has been left dysfunctional for so long?”

I have previously answered a Council question on this matter.

There was a period of time when for customers/residents raising service requests, a reference number was not created/provided. This was due to earlier technical problems, which resulted in us not being able to correctly plot request locations due to the map facility being broken.

This problem has now been rectified and since mid August 2014 onwards reference numbers have been provided for any service request logged through the customer centre. 

(xxxii)                To the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance from Cllr Reid:

“How much has been paid by the Council during the last 12 months for the maintenance and other costs associated with Oliver House and why has the decision of the Cabinet taken last year - to sell the property - not been implemented?”

During the last 12 months the Council have spent £11,547.50 on Oliver House maintenance and upkeep costs. The property is occupied by an organisation called Ad Hoc Property Management, who provide short-term accommodation for a few individuals.

The property is now ready for sale and is being placed on the market in the next two weeks. The decision to sell was made in January 2014. Work has been ongoing with housing to explore future uses and jointly market the site with the adjoining garages to increase the value. Due to an unusually heavy workload for the Asset Management team in the spring and early summer and a decision not to market the property during the quiet summer period the sale has not been possible until now.

(xxxiii)              To the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance from Cllr Ayre:

“Will the Cabinet Member publish the latest quality of service statistics which he holds for Customer Services covering both "in person" presentations at West Offices together with time to answer telephone calls and respond to electronic communications?”

In person at West Offices – a reduction in customers this year has accompanied an improvement in seeing customers within 10 minutes of arrival.

Phones

Improvements were made last year on answering calls within 20 seconds  (SLA), however volumes have recently peaked and introduction of additional work types/volumes for Electoral Register calls and the Lendal Bridge refund process has resulted in a wider spectrum of calls being presented at the same time.

With current training activity we hope to be in a much better position next month, with a further group of new fully trained resources available in January.  Extra specialist resource is planned to help with elections calls, but this will not be in place for a few weeks yet.

Our service provision will be enhanced by the introduction of the new voice server in the new year which will seek to serve callers better than the current version does with improved accuracy, and better information giving facilities including call waiting times.

In April we will also have a new web site in place that will also help customers in providing information they have told us they want to see.. This will be followed by the implementation of a new customer system which will be easier for our residents to use on-line when, booking, applying or paying for services.  All of this work as part of the Rewiring Programme will reduce pressures on our phone teams.

In this report electronic communications currently relates to emails only however going forward all channels including social media sit under this.

The current system does not currently provide data on the completed time for emails against service level, this would have to be a manual calculation on each case. The current service level is within 24hours however as a result of the uplift in contact as mentioned below and reduced resource availability we have not met this timescale for some.

Below are the Q2 results of current levels of customer satisfaction for those customers contacting us by telephone. The figures show that over 90% were Very Good or Excellent.

Below are satisfaction survey results taken from our new Kiosk which went live from 6^th October as part of the National Customer Service Week.

(i)        To the Cabinet Member for Finance and Performance from Cllr Ayre:

“Could the Cabinet Member specifically say why it is it taking the Council up to 2 weeks to log for action some issues which have been e-mailed by residents?”

We have recently had a 23% increase in email contacts for the two week period of 15^th – 26^th September compared to the same period the month earlier – an additional 691 emails. We do not know why there has been such a sudden increase in email traffic but it has led to some delays.

We are looking at solutions to support us with instances of this nature going forward such as looking at opportunities to assimilate the activity into the business support function which would mean that the process would be joined up across all services, with a wider network of available resource to cover during holidays and busier times.

A further future improvement is that of the new technology and offering of an on line facility and web site which will be developed next year.

We have recently reviewed and improved the quality of our responses to email contacts which in turn has increased the processing times for the business but an improved outcome for the customer. Our current service level target is to provide a response in 24hrs however due to recent reduction in resource availability, a result of a combination of factors including absence throughout September and an uplift in contact we have being unable to respond to all within 24hrs and have currently prioritising a list of outstanding cases.

To mitigate any concerns regarding our high priority jobs e.g. 2hr removal of needles, we have ensured that all cases of this nature have been identified and actioned within timescale.

Our current position as at today’s date is:

·        Council Tax 533 with the oldest being the 29^th Sept 

·        Benefits 21 emails. Oldest 6^th October – on track

·        Frontline 195 emails.  Oldest 27^th September

The above remains a high priority for the teams to reduce back to within 24hrs by deploying any available resource from across Customer Service teams/areas as available. We are working towards being up to date by w/c 13/10 at the latest.

(ii)      To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement from Cllr Ayre:

“Following her answer to the last Council meeting could the Cabinet Member provide an update on the EPH Modernisation Project and specifically the planned Lowfields Care Village?”

This decision is still subject to an ongoing procurement exercise.

(iii)      To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement  from Cllr Ayre:

“When and where were competitive tenders for the provision of Lowfields published and how long will the delays in starting work on this important facility continue?”

The OJEU notice was published on 7 June 2013 (Reference number 2013/S 109-186734).

The OJEU notice also referred to a Memorandum Of Information which was published alongside the Pre Qualification Questionnaire on 11 June 2013 through CYC’s e-tendering system which, at that time, was Supplierforce.

This project is still subject to an ongoing procurement exercise.

(iv)    To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement  from Cllr Aspden:

“What has been the total cost and total attendance (broken down by ward) of the Community Conversations?”

The total cost as of Monday 6^th October was £2457 - The total attendance as of Monday 6^th October is 309

(See attached spreadsheet for cost of venue and printing broken down by ward)

(v)      To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement  from Cllr Ayre:

“Why did the Cabinet Member fail to agree to a proposal, put to her on the 25^th September, to delay the ending of the lunchtime meals service in sheltered homes so that alternatives could be developed, chosen by residents, and properly tendered?”

In terms of tendering, the council cannot commission a meals service for one group of York residents and not another – i.e. the provision of meals for tenants in some sheltered schemes and not for any other resident.

Alternatives have and are being developed, all residents who have a care plan and accessed the meals service have had their care packages reviewed and altered, all residents who have a care plan have been reviewed or offered a review. Tenants are being given control and choice to make decisions across a wide range of providers in line with the wider personalisation agenda.

(vi)    To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement  from Cllr Orrell:

“Could the Cabinet Member update Council on the latest “delayed transfer of care” figures and outline what plans are in place to improve performance in this area in York?”

Below are the acute figures for City of York local authority and NHS. These are recorded as:-

Snapshot of customers delaying on the last Thursday of the month/total number of days for all customers for the whole month

CYC                                        Health 

April                     2/70                                        7/193

May                    1/98                                        7/143

June                   4/182                                      9/186

July                      5/323                                      10/295

August                 7/152                                      5/286

September          6/293                                      8/186

Of these figures, all bar 5 days related to resource availability i.e. delays for residential or nursing placements, home care or reablement - there were no delays for Adult Social Care assessment during this period.

Work to improve performance continues in this particular area and across the service as a whole. This work is focused on a number of areas: for example, through early intervention/prevention work to help reduce hospital admissions in the first place. An element of the Better Care Fund (BCF) work will focus on this area building on previous successes. In addition work is ongoing to streamline processes for assessment and referrals and to potentially increase the number of available step-down beds. Another area that is being looked at as part of the BCF work is greatly increasing the penetration of assistive technology (AT) to save care hours, particularly around avoidable medication prompting visits. This has been tried before, and further work will take place to increase use of AT moving forward. Other possibilities to reduce domiciliary care demand include reviewing practice around double-handed care packages that could be single-handed with a suitable hoist installed (and much better for the person and their carer because they can use the equipment at any time).

The underlying reason for the vast majority of delayed transfers of care is a delay in available care packages – mostly in home care but also in nursing or residential care settings. On residential waits, the hospital team follows these up and most people are moved into suitable residential accommodation as soon as that can be arranged. There is sometimes a mismatch when customers want to move to a particular home and there are no vacancies, and this delay relates to choice rather than a lack of spaces. Delays in providing home care are largely due to the fact that there is a serious shortage of care workers in the city and therefore the system is not able to deal with peaks and troughs in demand that other areas cope with better. It is the reality of having technical full employment in the city that people are choosing not to stay in or to enter the care profession. Having identified this issue we are looking to implement a number of policies, building on the Labour administration’s Living Wage policy, to help attract and retain high quality staff in the care sector.

(vii)   To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement  from Cllr Reid:

“In February 2012 Labour promised that the same services which were offered at the Acomb Office would be offered in new sessions, including housing, council tax, and housing benefits advice at Sanderson House. Why has there now been a change in policy and why have these advice sessions at Sanderson House ended?”

I would refer Cllr Reid to the cabinet member for Homes and Safer Communities who will be able to answer this question.

(viii)  To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement  from Cllr Barton:

“What was the average attendance at the recent Community Conversation Meetings?”

21

(ix)    To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement  from Cllr Barton:

“What were the major concerns expressed by residents at the recent Community Conversation Meetings?”

A very wide range of issues both local and citywide – please see previously attached spreadsheet which breaks down topics/residents issues raised, by ward.

(x)      To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement  from Cllr Barton:

“What lessons were learned from the recent Community Conversation Meetings?”

These events have enabled residents to raise a range of issues that are important to them and for the council to respond quickly and flexibly. They have complemented the work of local members in engaging with their communities.

It is clear where that where local members are providing good leadership, that communities are better able to articulate the issues that they face. Local members will be able to build on the momentum created by these events.

We have also learnt that those who attended the meetings tend to be those who are already actively involved in their community and we need to continue to find creative ways of engaging with those that don’t traditionally attend council-led meetings.

(xi)    To the Cabinet Member for Health & Community Engagement  from Cllr Barton:

“Of the monies to date distributed on CYC’s behalf by Your Consortium, what percentage was distributed to Wards represented by Labour Councillors?”

The money is distributed to city-wide organisations and not on a ward basis.

(xii)   To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Cuthbertson:

“Could the Cabinet Member confirm that there are no plans to close or re-locate Bishopthorpe Library?”

I can absolutely confirm that there are no plans to close Bishopthorpe or any other library.

This administration has been in the business of opening libraries not closing them, and that remains the case. 

Not only that but we have worked hard to improve our existing libraries.  I am pleased to say that our state of the art new archive facility will open on 5 January at York Explore.  Explore libraries and archives will continue to accelerate the pace of improvement, examining every library to see what potential there is provide better facilities and services for the community. 

Bishopthorpe is no exception, and if opportunities are created for a bigger and more modern facility as part of any plans that the community are developing, then I have no doubt that Explore will want to be part of them if at all possible.

(xiii)  To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Runciman:

“Could the Cabinet Member confirm that users of Waterworld and residents of Huntington will be kept informed of the Community Stadium development going forward, particularly any further changes and/or extra development?”

The Council are finalising a joint communications plan with GLL (the anticipated new stadium and leisure operator) which will keep users and residents up-to-date with all the relevant information regarding the transitional arrangements.

Customer notices and display boards are in both receptions at Waterworld and Huntington Stadium. All swimming lesson customers have already been written to and it is proposed to write to all gym members shortly.

A comprehensive community consultation process will soon begin, providing full details regarding the proposals prior to the planning submission.  This will have a particular focus on issues relating to local residents and community groups.

GLL are also keeping their website up to date.

(xiv) To the Cabinet Member for Leisure, Culture & Tourism from Cllr Ayre:

“How much did the “Grand Departy", held at Huntington Stadium on 4th July 2014, cost and what income was raised from ticket sales?”

I refer the member to my answer to a very similar question posed by  Cllr Aspden at the council meeting on 17 July 2014.

I can only add this time around that final costs and income on the Grand De Party are currently being worked on with the operator.

However, in the interests of clarity, the Tour de France and the cultural and community events leading up to the day of the 2nd stage depart should be looked at collectively.

Like any major event of many parts, some segments of the Tour de France York will have made a profit and others may not, some events were held to promote the race and others simply to engage with our communities.

The Tour de France was a phenomenal success and no matter how much opposition members try to pick off parts of the whole, it will always go down in the history of events in this city as a resounding success and one that this Labour Administration promised to deliver and was seen to deliver.

Finally, although I decided to answer this question first time around on 17 July, and have taken the time to respond again and further expand on the benefits of the Tour de France, the question should have been addressed to another member of Cabinet.

Should members wish to ask the question again, then I respectfully suggest they ask it of the correct member of Cabinet.  

(xv)  To the Cabinet Member for Education, Children and Young People from Cllr Aspden:

“Could the Cabinet Member outline what local community use she expects from the newly announced £7m plans at Fulford School (specifically the sports hall) and what additional consultation will take place with local sports groups and residents in the drawing up of these plans?”

I do not think it would be in any way proper for me to draw up plans for the use by the Fulford community of the proposed Sports Hall. This is entirely a matter for the school to discuss with the local groups described. Much I can do, but tell schools how to arrange the use of their buildings is not within my competence nor should it be. The school has a good track record of opening itself up to community use, and I am confident this good relationship will continue. I would suggest that these discussions take place with the school directly.